Thread: Anti-Kerry Film looks damaging

It is incredibly odd that rightwingers are suddenly pretending to rush to the defense of Mary Cheney's "privacy," as if they've suddenly forgotten their reaction when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws a year ago. Seems to me there was a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, one featured frequently on the 700 Club, who railed that Americans had no right to privacy...even in the case where police officers invaded a home and arrested two men in bed together.

As a debate point, Kerry's remarks made perfect sense, especially since the Vice President has openly talked about his daughter during the campaign, the subject was brought up during the vice presidential debate and Cheney herself served as the gay outreach representative for Bush-Cheney 2000 AND in that same capacity for Coors Brewing Company. Strangely enough, the Cheneys were incredibly silent when Illinois Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes called their daughter a "selfish hedonist" during a radio interview (ironically, words he has been eating himself since bloggers distributed pictures of his OWN daughter with her apparent "girlfriend" and Keyes has refused comment).

If the Cheneys wanted to defuse that situation, they could have easily said "no, Mary doesn't think she was born that way" and THAT would have made Kerry look lame.

While hearsay isn't normally the best debate technique, it connected with the gay audience watching the program, especially after the President pushed his constitutional amendment while admitting he "did not know" if homosexuality was a choice. Talk about getting all the information before restricting an American citizen's rights . . .


What DOES stand out is that Mary Cheney has yet to make any remark contesting what Kerry said.

- - This "communist" label crap would have to apply to the majority of the American people, who increasingly opposed the Vietnam War. It is primarily used by those who look back at the 1950's and the golden age of the McCarthy inquisition as freedom's shining hour.

President Nixon won election partially because of his "plan" to Vietnamize the war and reduce American troop involvement.

- - Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.

- - The Korean War was a United Nations action, an operation that was successful because the Soviet Union stormed out of Security Council sessions and was unable to veto resolutions for continuing deployment and action.

- - Vietnam started right after World War II - and we made quite a few tactical errors, primarily because we stopped championing independence movements and tried to prop up the French. It was partly our unresponsive reaction to Ho Chi Minh that drove him into the communist camp and set the stage for the long conflict later.

Not every soldier who returned from Vietnam was treated badly - that myth not only degrades family and friends who waited patiently for those tours of duty to end and the people who worked hard to bring more troops home. The war was both expensive and tragic to all sides involved - one of our legacies were the thousands of Amerasian children born and left behind when we departed the country.

There's nothing patriotic about accusing huge numbers of fellow Americans of being traitors - Party membership is neither an automatic ticket to biblical Rapture nor a litmus test for patriotism...except in countries advocating one party government.

I haven't seen a single post from you that would show you to be an independant Stick. Not one single thing from you that I have read could be seen as anything but Republican, and Hard Bush. So no it was not BS.

What issue(s) would put you out of the Republican party bro?

Far as Moore goes ... Debunk him as you see fit Stick. I'd like to believe that the Bush I voted for 3 times is not a completely corrupt oil thief. Truely I would cuz I hate to be wrong and really hate to have to say it out loud ... but I thought Bush was a good choice over Gore and now wish to God I had not voted for this dude.

Moore is hated by ALL Republicans that support Bush and is just as unliked by some centrists too. But ... I watched his movie last week and was bugged by it ... it followed along all the crap I've seen the last couple of years from Bush. I never believed the WMD's BS, and expected his boys to get a little oil money for their efforts. But Jesus this is way past a little here.

You debunk Moore & I'll vote for Bush Stick. I say that with a straight face and in total honesty. I'm not talking about some of it ... I mean the whole underlying premis that BushCo is dealing at secret levels with the Saudi's for the gain of BushCo at our expense.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

I haven't seen a single post from you that would show you to be an independant Stick. Not one single thing from you that I have read could be seen as anything but Republican, and Hard Bush. So no it was not BS.

Attack as you wish.

Far as Moore goes ... Debunk him as you see fit Stick. I'd like to believe that the Bush I voted for 3 times is not a completely corrupt oil thief. Truely I would cuz I hate to be wrong and really hate to have to say it out loud ... but I thought Bush was a good choice over Gore and now wish to God I had not voted for this dude.

You live in Texas, right? Guess where I'm registered to vote?

You debunk Moore & I'll vote for Bush Stick. I say that with a straight face and in total honesty. I'm not talking about some of it ... I mean the whole underlying premis that BushCo is dealing at secret levels with the Saudi's for the gain of BushCo at our expense.

How about this, then, since you mention the Saudi's?

Moore asserts that the Saudi's, including the Bin Laden family, were allowed to leave before aircraft were allowed to fly.

Fact: The Bin Laden family has supported, and donated money, to such Presidents as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton. To blame their link to Bush only would be ignorant.

No one was allowed to fly before Sept 13, 2001. NO ONE. (Remember? I work in the ATC field). The Saudi's in the country, including members of the Bin Laden family, flew out on this date, along with all other general aviation passengers, AFTER being interviewed by FBI agents. The 9/11 report states that many "Saudi's" were asked detailed questions before being allowed to leave.

Richard Clark approved the flights. The governmental decision went no higher. As a matter of fact, Clark later said that the Saudi exit examples Moore presented in his "film" were, and quoting Clark here, "a mistake".

Of course, this is stuff you can look up yourself. It's FACT.

What else do you want me to prove MM false on?

Oh, PM me for the full debriefing on the topics of your choice that Moore presented in his "documentary" or "opinion" piece, as he's calling it now.

Moore is a Democrat and a blow hard that does the kind of two faced conceited downward speaking politicking that I just don’t care for. Whether it is a smooth-talking suited clean-shaven person or a scraggy faced guy in a plaid shirt talking around an issue it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Although I did like it when he tried to get the Congressmen to enlist their own kids in the Iraq war … that was good shit!!

I care very little about Bin Laden, as I believe him to be dead. To blame the family for his sins would not be in my way of thinking. I've said in other posts that I did not really care for Moore's way of doing things ... trying to build the Bin Laden theory into his whole BushCo concept took away from the basic premise. That Premise is that BushCo (not Bush but the entire crew) is after oil in that region and has shaped our perceptions of world events to aid his crew in accessing that oil. This hypothesis is something that I had already come to on my own before I watched Moore's piece. I was bugged that he was showing visual links and sources for up to then things that were only suspicions in my mind. Am I going to give you an item-by-item request to debunk? No Stick it is the entire premise that I believe disqualifies BushCo from leading and am asking you to debunk. The piece Moore did has that hypothesis as its main underlying statement … debunk that hypothesis and I'll vote for Bush again. If you cannot debunk that theory than you should not vote for the man.

He is still an environmental disaster in a suit that cannot seperate church from state and will not respect the rights of each and every American regardless of race, religion, or sexual preferance. That said I will vote for him if you can debunk the premise of Moore's flick. I guess this is a put you vote where your mouth is kinda wager Stick. My money is on the table ...

Originally Posted by shutupntra1n

Booo hooo for Kerry. He showed his true character the other night with his low blow comments that he used as a crutch to sell himself. All I know is "Democrats are whores for votes" and some things never change

I didn't think I could like her more.......I stand corrected.